“A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.” –HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965
(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I.)
Scientologist Danny Masterson smugly announced he feels “fantastic” after his July 7 hearing for vicious, violent rapes.
As we await his upcoming criminal trial, the California Supreme Court has given a reason for cautious optimism regarding Masterson’s civil suits.
Judge Kleifield’s decision to allow Scientology’s Comm Ev arbitration to handle the accusations of witness intimidation, harassment, stalking and the poisoning of beloved family pets left us angry and frustrated.
In response the accusers appealed and hope, however small, has us waiting with baited breath for the resolution.
Scientology’s kangaroo court is stacked against the petitioner from the word “go”.
L. Ron Hubbard spent a great deal of time defining who and what a Suppressive Person is. He clearly laid out the crimes that, if committed, would render one fair game and outside any justice.
Policy as stated in the above referenced HCO Policy Letter includes “Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations”
By going to the police, each accuser made a public disavowal against Danny Masterson. Further adding to this crime was the filing of a civil suit against David Miscavige and Scientology.
“…reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist…”
Exposing Scientology to the risk of court litigation is seen as an effort to suppress Scientology.
Masterson’s accusers were already considered Suppressive even before they committed the crimes of going to law enforcement.
HCOPL 23, December 1965, Revised on 8, January 1991; Suppressive Acts/Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists firmly and succinctly orders, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology”.
“The imagination must not be stretched to place this label on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.”
“A truly Suppressive Person has no rights of any kind as Scientologists.”
Within this statement lies the outcome of any Comm Ev arbitration.
Judge Kleifield’s decision in favor of Scientology (and indeed this same ruling in Valerie Haney’s case) is a ruling of injustice. Hubbard clearly ordered that there is no innocence until guilt is proven.
The women who left Scientology committed a high crime and are outside any hope for fair treatment.
“A Committee of Evidence may be called by any Convening Authority who wishes more concrete evidence of efforts to suppress Scientology or Scientologists but if such a Committee’s findings, passed on, establish beyond reasonable doubt Suppressive Acts, this Policy Letter applies and the person is fair game.“
Herein lies the justification and absolution of guilt for the subsequent torment Masterson’s accusers have undergone. Fair Game is the directive to destroy the enemy by any means necessary.
Coldly Hubbard instructs, “Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.”
Two arguments exist here for the denial of forcing Danny Masterson’s accusers into the Comm Ev.
First, by leaving the cult the women were no longer members of Scientology. Once they renounced their allegiance they repudiated all the organization meant in their lives. This repudiation broke the Enrollment Contract because ultimately this contract is the agreement that one would adhere to all that Scientology espouses. Masterson’s accusers were no longer Scientologists according to this contract therefore they were outside it’s sphere of influence.
Scientology denies this which begets the second argument. If the accusers are still bound by the Enrollment Agreement then they must be treated by all the extant policies the contract represents.
This means that under Scientology “law” the women are egregiously Suppressive on multiple counts and are subject to the written consequences which include disconnection and fair game.
It further means they are outside any hope for justice, fairness or mercy at the hands of Scientology’s Committee of Evidence.
As we await Judge Kleifield’s response and California Supreme Court’s final ruling these policies haunt us, reminding us that justice and the inalienable basic Human Rights of these survivors are at stake.
Scientology is crystal clear that their accusers are already guilty, Suppressive and outside of any hope of a fair hearing.
In the meantime Danny Masterson feels fantastic.
3 thoughts on “Masterson’s Accusers- Hope For Justice”
You’re bringing up an important point.
The argument is always made that if you enter a contract (presented as religious and business contract, whatever fits the narrative best at the moment) you can’t just later walk out and then claim that you’re no longer bound by what was a bilateral agreement. But this makes it clear that the cult broke off with these former members, and their agreements, as well. In fact, they seem overly eager to disassociate themselves from former members. For example, they will claim that Remini (to name just one) did NOT walk out on them but that she was expelled before that. “No, she didn’t leave ME. I broke up with her first.” Very High School!
But it also deserves mention that the events alleged in this lawsuit occurred well after any semblance of cult membership had ceased. At a point when none of these plaintiffs would be welcome on any cult premises or would have ad any desire to enter them. So it seems farcical that former association somehow should justify “religious” harassment for the rest of one’s life (or future lives maybe even).
We have a legal system where it’s carefully spelled out (in language no layperson can understand) how many lawyers can argue on the head of a pin. It’s absurd that a fairly simple distinction such as this one ought to be ignored by lazy judges!
LikeLiked by 2 people
As always, you present the specific cult “scriptures” that stipulate, endorse, and justify the criminality and abuses that they are world famous for…
Every single proof and confirmation of this so-called church’s inherent evil and malevolence is contained in its “scriptures”.
Brilliant post, thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Mark. Your kind words mean a lot to me. I mean that.